[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4675-4676]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3189

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 21, 2014

  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

                                Crested Butte Mountain Resort,

                                Crested Butte, CO, March 21, 2014.
       Dear Representative Tipton, I am writing on behalf of 
     Crested Butte Mountain Resort (CBMR) in support of H.R. 3189, 
     the ``Water Rights Protection Act.'' CBMR currently operates 
     on U.S. Forest Service Special Use Permit on over 4,300 acres 
     in Gunnison County and generates over $28 million dollars 
     into the local economy from destination skiers in lodging, 
     dining, entertainment and retail purchases.
       CBMR supports H.R. 3189 because it would prohibit the U.S. 
     Forest Service from requiring our resort to transfer valuable 
     water rights to the Forest Service as a condition of 
     receiving a permit, or to apply for water rights in the name 
     of the United States, without compensation. This bill would 
     also prevent the federal government from making an end run 
     around state law by merely taking water rights that it does 
     not own through its permitting authority. It would not only 
     protect ski area water rights--it would protect any water 
     rights owners that operate on federal land.
       Furthermore, requiring transfer of valuable water rights to 
     the U.S. Forest Service as a condition of receiving a permit 
     raises serious Fifth Amendment concerns. Most Colorado 
     resorts' water rights were acquired and developed at great 
     expense pursuant to Colorado law, and in some cases pre-date 
     the Forest Service itself. If the U.S. Forest Service wants 
     to secure its own water rights, it should buy them on 
     Colorado's well-regulated water market like everyone else.
       Thank you for scheduling a hearing on H.R. 3189 and for 
     your leadership on this issue. It means a great deal to CBMR 
     and other ski resorts operating across Colorado on Forest 
     Service lands.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ethan Mueller,
                                                  General Manager.
                                  ____
                                  
                                           Conejos County Colorado


                                Board of County Commissioners,

                                    Conejos, CO, October 21, 2013.
     Hon. Scott Tipton,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jared Polis,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Tipton and Polis: We the Conejos 
     County Board of Commissioners would like to endorse and 
     support the introduction of H.R. 3189, the Water Rights 
     Protection Act, which will prohibit the conditioning of any 
     permit, lease, or other use agreement on the transfer 
     relinquishment, or other impairment of any water right to the 
     United States by the Secretaries of the Interior and 
     Agriculture.
       Conejos County is largely owned by the Federal Government 
     in which 62% of the land is owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
     and the Bureau of Land Management. If the USFS attempted to 
     implement a permit condition that required the transfer of 
     privately held water rights to the federal government as a 
     permit condition on National Forest System lands, this would 
     have a devastating effect on our ranchers and farmers and the 
     already strained water situation in Conejos County. It is 
     imperative to protect our privately held water rights, 
     prohibit federal takings and uphold state water laws 
     clarifying that the federal government does not have 
     jurisdiction.
       We again offer our support and will watch as this important 
     legislation moves forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Steve McCarroll,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  


                                      Colorado Water Congress,

                                      Denver, CO, October 3, 2013.
     Re: Colorado Water Congress Supports H.R. 3189, Water Rights 
         Protection Act
     Hon. Scott Tipton.
       Dear Congressman Tipton: The Colorado Water Congress is 
     pleased to see the introduction of and hearing for Water 
     Rights Protection Act (WRPA), H.R. 3189. The bipartisan bill 
     was introduced last week. This legislation, with the 
     consensus amendments developed by your office, the national 
     ski areas and Colorado water users would prohibit the 
     conditioning of any permit, lease, or other use agreement on 
     the transfer or surrender of any water right to the United 
     States by the Secretaries of Interior or Agriculture.
       The issue is of particular importance to Colorado's ski 
     areas that are located in national forests. The U.S. Forest 
     Service, through a 2012 Interim Directive recently attempted 
     to require the transfer of privately owned water rights on 
     federal lands to the federal government as a condition of 
     issuing standard land use permits.
       The National Ski Areas Association sued the Forest Service 
     alleging that the directive amounts to a taking of private 
     property rights without due compensation and asked for a 
     declaration that the Forest Service cannot condition a ski 
     area special use permit on the assignment or severance of 
     water rights. In December 2012, the federal district court 
     entered an injunction prohibiting the Forest Service from 
     enforcing the directive. The court found that the Forest 
     Service violated federal procedural laws in adopting the 
     directive.
       This matter is of importance to the Colorado legislature 
     that as recently as late August 2013 continues to investigate 
     Forest Service activities in this regard. It is unfortunate 
     that Colorado water users have to had to pursue both 
     litigation and legislation to protect our water rights from 
     takings by our Federal government.
       We hope that passage of H.R. 3139 will put us on the right 
     path toward a permanent resolution. We urge the House to pass 
     this legislation without delay.
       The Colorado Water Congress supports H.R. 3139. Thank you 
     for sponsoring the bill. Best regards,
           Best regards,
                                                   Douglas Kemper,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____
                                  


                                                      CLUB 20,

                              Grand Junction, CO, October 8, 2013.
     Hon. Scott Tipton,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Tipton: CLUB 20 strongly urges 
     Congressional support and passage of H. R. 3189, known as the 
     ``Water Rights Protection Act.''
       CLUB 20 is a 60 year old coalition of businesses, 
     individuals and local governments with members representing 
     22 counties west of the Continental Divide in Colorado. Our 
     members have been coming together over the past six decades 
     to discuss matters of common concern to Western Colorado 
     communities and citizens. Water has often been a focal point 
     for CLUB 20 members as there are far reaching implications to 
     many of the industries, communities and residents on the West 
     Slope regarding privately held water rights in the region.
       Water rights are considered private property under Colorado 
     water law and are managed under a strict system that has 
     served the state over time. For many years, CLUB 20 policy 
     has opposed, ``. . . any Federal requirement that permittees 
     assign water rights to the United States in order to obtain, 
     renew or modify federal permits.'' CLUB 20 understands that 
     the McCarran Amendment requires the federal government, when 
     requested, to adjudicate any water rights it requires under 
     the substantive and procedural elements of state water law 
     within the state of the desired rights.
       Our members have openly opposed and continue to oppose the 
     efforts of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to unilaterally 
     require ski areas or agriculture producers to turn over their 
     privately held water rights to the USFS as a condition of 
     obtaining, modifying or renewing a permit to conduct ski area 
     activities or maintain infrastructures to convey water on 
     USFS lands. We further oppose any such provision or ruling 
     that may apply to other private water rights with regard to, 
     natural resource development interests or other domestic 
     water interests.
       The explanation offered by the USFS for the ``taking'' of 
     these privately held water rights, often developed at great 
     expense to the owner, is that they wish to maintain the 
     designated use of the water for the permit. We find that 
     explanation disingenuous for the following reasons:
       1. Requiring that the USFS be named the owner of valid, 
     existing water rights is taking a private property right 
     without compensation and appears to be a violation of the 
     Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
       2. It would appear that federal ownership of these water 
     rights could be used to disallow future use of the area as a 
     ski area or other designated enterprise because the agency 
     that holds title to the water rights could deny permits based 
     on their withholding of those same water rights.
       3. Once promulgated by the USFS regarding ski area and 
     agriculture water rights, similar decisions could be made 
     regarding grazing rights, mining rights, milling rights, 
     energy rights even municipal water rights.
       4. This effort by the federal government seeks to undermine 
     states' rights with regard to water management, which our 
     members find unacceptable.
       Ski area and agriculture operators invest significant 
     amounts of capital to develop their operations; in order to 
     attract the investment capital necessary, they must show that 
     they have adequate ability to construct and operate the 
     facility. Without demonstrating that they have adequate water

[[Page 4676]]

     rights, attracting capital will be difficult if not 
     impossible. Further, it has been shown time after time that 
     federal regulations can be, and are, routinely modified for 
     one reason or another creating uncertainty for developers of 
     all sorts on public lands. Once held in the name of the USFS, 
     there is no guarantee that these water rights won't be 
     redirected, withheld or otherwise made unavailable to those 
     who made significant investments in developing those rights.
       We support the protections inherent in H.R. 3186 and urge 
     passage of this or similar legislation which accomplishes the 
     same purpose. Thank you for addressing this critical issue 
     through the legislative process; we look forward to working 
     with you to see this bill through the process.
           Best Regards,
                                                  Bonnie Petersen,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____
                                  

         AGNC Releases Statement on Ski Area Water Rights Issue

       Rifle.--Scott McInnis, Executive Director of the Associated 
     Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC), released a 
     statement today regarding the United States Forest Service's 
     attempt to make the renewal of special-use permits by 
     Colorado ski areas conditional on transference of water 
     rights to the federal government, and efforts in the Colorado 
     State Legislature to prohibit such requirements:
       ``The AGNC vehemently opposes any attempt by the U.S. 
     Forest Service, or any other federal agency, to make 
     relinquishment of private water rights a condition of permit 
     renewal for users of government lands, as demonstrated 
     against our local ski industry last year. We believe this is 
     in violation of Colorado water law, and represents an 
     egregious intrusion on private property rights.
       In addition to the immediate harm done to the property 
     rights of the affected skiing businesses, AGNC is especially 
     concerned with the broader ramifications of this action; what 
     other permit holders on government land will be required to 
     hand over their water rights in order to renew their permits? 
     Energy developers? Farmers and ranchers? Grazing 
     Associations? Local governments maintaining roads or 
     facilities on these lands?
       With nearly 70% of northwest Colorado's land being 
     government-owned (over 70% in Mesa and Rio Blanco Counties) 
     it is easy to see how dependent our regional economy is on 
     these lands. Nearly all of our local industries--energy, 
     agriculture, tourism, and transportation, among others--rely 
     on access to government land. It is unconscionable that the 
     agencies charged with managing these lands for multiple uses 
     would use private water rights as bargaining chips in the 
     permit renewal process.
       AGNC therefore supports efforts at the state level to 
     prohibit this and similar future actions on the part of the 
     USFS and other federal land management agencies.''
                                  ____

                                                    California Ski


                                         Industry Association,

                                 Mill Valley, CA, October 4, 2013.
     Re Support for H.R. 3189

     Hon. Doc Hastings,
     Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hastings: On behalf of the members and 
     directors of the California Ski Industry Association I am 
     writing to add our support to H.R. 3189, the Water Rights 
     Protection Act.
       This narrowly focused bill is designed to resolve an unfair 
     regulation requiring Forest Service permitees to cede, 
     without compensation, their water rights to the agency. 
     Nineteen of California's twenty-six ski areas operate on 
     Forest Service lands. We have a long history of working with 
     the agency and will continue to do so in the future. However, 
     our winter sports facilities on federal lands are strongly 
     opposed to the clauses that would require California 
     permitees to cede their valuable water rights to the agency 
     without compensation. Such clauses represent a taking and 
     carry far-reaching legal and economic implications, not only 
     for our industry but also for all other permitees operating 
     on Forest Service lands.
       A recent study by San Francisco State University reported 
     that California's winter sports resorts generate $1.3 billion 
     in economic activity and over 16,000 jobs in our mountain 
     communities. Our resorts have millions of dollars invested in 
     their water rights. In many cases the source of these rights 
     are located outside of the permit boundaries.
       We appreciate your scheduling a hearing on H.R. 3189 and 
     thank your and the sponsors of this important legislation.
           Yours truly,
                                                      Bob Roberts,
     President & CEO.

                          ____________________